Some Jackass Thought It Would Be Amusing

[Trip]

Originally Posted by anthonyk

Tens of feet? Maybe my trig is off, but assuming we're not within tens of feet of the aircraft, you're going to have to guess the right angle within about 5 degrees (with no landmarks) to get that kind of precision. A wide range of angles just makes the whole thing worse.

Just do the math using 30 degrees and 60 degrees, and assume you can make out the tail numbers with a camera from 1/4 mile away. It puts the estimated altitude range anywhere from 660 feet to 1120 feet. Further away, or a wider angle spread, and your precision is even worse.

I think if we really actually tried to solve the altitude and wanted to get this done, we could get it that accurate with no issues. This isn't going to happen because 1) Lee doesn't really care so any info we need is not going to be recovered 2) No one is really going to spend any time pursuing this anyway.

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by Trip

You could easily get information off the plane itself about scaling, that combined with information from the camera itself aka zoom,lens, and such you can easily determine distance from the camera to the plane. Sometimes you can even get this information from the photo itself depending on what the camera embeds into the digital photos. Some cameras will even embed GPS info into photos nowadays.

If it is a Cessna, then it'd be easy as shit since they come with a built in triangle for us to use as a basis anyways. Even if a jet we could find a lot of stuff out easily because they are slammed full of triangles.

Of course trip, maybe you should have picked a major that had some kind of math. Electrical engineering has none so you fucked up .

[Trip]

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

You just proved my point. Even if Lee posts a picture, he isn't going to send you his camera for forensics. He also won't be able to tell you the exact zoom used, unless he was maxed out in either direction.

Just too many variables. And certainly not worth calling someone's judgment into question.

That's why I already changed my position, we are raping the pilot with a stick covered in barb wire and stealing his Campbell's canned soups. You onboard?

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Of course trip, maybe you should have picked a major that had some kind of math. Electrical engineering has none so you fucked up .

Are you joking? or just that clueless?

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Trip

That's why I already changed my position, we are raping the pilot with a stick covered in barb wire and stealing his Campbell's canned soups. You onboard?

My pitch fork and torch are at the ready.

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by Trip

Are you joking? or just that clueless?

I put the smiley to show it was a joke. Guess it didn't work. I understnad eletrical engineering is all about math. I think eletrical engineering is one of the few fields that actually uses Laplace Transformations, which was a major headache for me in my CalcII class.

[anthonyk]

Originally Posted by Trip

I think if we really actually tried to solve the altitude and wanted to get this done, we could get it that accurate with no issues. This isn't going to happen because 1) Lee doesn't really care so any info we need is not going to be recovered 2) No one is really going to spend any time pursuing this anyway.

Nah, it's not going to happen because it's not possible. Your theory is totally off base here. Make up the numbers you think you're gonna get from Lee's camera, and try to calculate it yourself. (Or just use my example, since I already did.)

Distance to the object is easy, but you're just waving some magical math wand to say you can get altitude from it.

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

I put the smiley to show it was a joke. Guess it didn't work. I understnad eletrical engineering is all about math. I think eletrical engineering is one of the few fields that actually uses Laplace Transformations, which was a major headache for me in my CalcII class.

In the classroom, definitely. I actually liked that stuff.

Never used it or saw anybody use it in my career though.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

I put the smiley to show it was a joke. Guess it didn't work. I understnad eletrical engineering is all about math. I think eletrical engineering is one of the few fields that actually uses Laplace Transformations, which was a major headache for me in my CalcII class.

your smiley threw me off, should used the

there are other transformations that are easier than laplace that people use instead, especially the signals and systems guys.

Originally Posted by anthonyk

Nah, it's not going to happen because it's not possible. Your theory is totally off base here. Make up the numbers you think you're gonna get from Lee's camera, and try to calculate it yourself. (Or just use my example, since I already did.)

Distance to the object is easy, but you're just waving some magical math wand to say you can get altitude from it.

the answer is Q

[Archren]

Originally Posted by Trip

the answer is Q

Nope, it's 42.

[Particle Man]

Originally Posted by Archren

Nope, it's 42.

That's not the answer. It's the ULTIMATE Answer...